1 CGHC010301192026 2026:CGHC:34710-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 454 of 2026 Hemraj Rao S/o Late Vishnu Rao, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Achholi, P.S. Urla, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh Through His Wife Anita Rao, W/o Hemraj Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Achholi, P.S. Urla, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Principal Secretary, Department of Home (Jail) Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Jail Superintendent Central Jail Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3. The District Magistrate Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 4. The Senior Superintendent of Police Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) (Complainant) 5. Station House Officer, Police Station Urla, District- Raipur (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Rekhraj Baghel, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Saumya Rai, Deputy Government Advocate. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.08.07 17:41:33 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 07.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Rekhraj Baghel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Saumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “10.1 To call for entire records from respondents pertaining to case of the petitioner for kind perusal of the Hon’ble High Court. 10.2 To quash the impugned order dated 23.06.2026 passed by the learned Advisory Board Bilaspur Chhattisgarh which is arising out of impugned order dated 06.05.2026 passed by the learned Commissioner-Cum-Arresting Officer, Raipur Division, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, in the interest of justice. 10.3 To direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner and to release the petitioner on undergone from the Central Jail Raipur, in the interest of justice. 3 10.4 To grant any other relief deemed fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, as per the prosecution case, three previous criminal cases under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘NDPS Act’), were registered against the petitioner, namely, Crime No.158/2015 for the offence punishable under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act, Crime No. 545/2022 for the offence punishable under Section 20(B)(ii)(a) of the NDPS Act, and Crime No. 473/2025 for the offence punishable under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act. 4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, on the basis of the aforesaid criminal cases, proceedings under Sections 3(1) and 11 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for short, ‘Act of 1988’), were initiated against the petitioner by the learned Commissioner-cum- Arresting Officer, Raipur Division, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. During the course of such proceedings, it was found that three criminal cases under the NDPS Act had been registered against the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the acquittal order in one of the aforesaid cases, namely, Crime No. 158 of 2015, was passed on 11.01.2016, whereas the judgment of conviction in another case, namely, Crime No. 545 of 2022, was passed on 06.02.2026. The remaining case, namely, Crime No. 473 of 2025, is presently pending trial. Thus, the three criminal cases relied upon 4 against the petitioner have culminated in different stages and outcomes, namely, acquittal in one case, conviction in another, and pendency of trial in the third case. Merely referring to the registration of three criminal cases, without appreciating their respective stages and outcomes, would not amount to proper and complete consideration of the material available on record. He further submits that, while passing the order dated 06.05.2026, the learned Commissioner-cum-Arresting Officer, Raipur Division, Raipur, has failed to properly appreciate the aforesaid distinction and has proceeded primarily on the basis of the existence of three criminal cases against the petitioner, without duly considering the individual status and outcome of each case. 6. It is also submitted by the learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner that the order dated 06.05.2026 has been passed without proper consideration of the material available on record and without undertaking an effective and meaningful inquiry into the individual circumstances of the petitioner. The learned Commissioner-cum- Arresting Officer has, according to the petitioner, mechanically relied upon the antecedents without recording adequate reasons as to why the extreme measure of preventive detention/arrest was necessary in the facts and circumstances of the present case. He further contended that aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 06.05.2026 passed by the learned Commissioner-cum-Arresting Officer, Raipur Division, Raipur, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Advisory Board, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. However, the learned Advisory Board, vide order dated 23.06.2026, rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner and 5 affirmed the order dated 06.05.2026 passed by the learned Commissioner-cum-Arresting Officer. The submission, therefore, is that the impugned order dated 23.06.2026 passed by the learned Advisory Board, affirming the order dated 06.05.2026, suffers from non- consideration of relevant material and does not properly take into account the actual status of the three criminal cases relied upon against the petitioner. The petitioner cannot be placed on the same footing in respect of all three cases when, admittedly, one case has culminated in acquittal, one has resulted in conviction, and one is still pending trial. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned action has caused serious hardship to the petitioner and his family members. The petitioner is a permanent resident of the place mentioned in the cause title of the writ petition and has deep roots in the society. There is no material to suggest that the petitioner is likely to abscond or evade the process of law. The said circumstance was also required to be considered by the competent authority before passing the impugned order. He also submits that the punishment/action imposed upon the petitioner is harsh and disproportionate to the circumstances placed on record. The competent authority ought to have adopted a fair, reasonable and balanced approach while considering the material against the petitioner, particularly when one of the three criminal cases has already ended in acquittal and another is still pending trial. 8. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any terms and conditions 6 that may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court and undertakes to comply with all such conditions in letter and spirit. 9. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 23.06.2026 passed by the learned Advisory Board, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, arising out of and affirming the order dated 06.05.2026 passed by the learned Commissioner-cum-Arresting Officer, Raipur Division, Raipur, suffers from non-application of mind, non-consideration of relevant material and arbitrariness and, therefore, deserves to be set aside. 10. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the proceedings against the petitioner have been initiated in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1988 on the basis of his criminal antecedents and the material available on record. It is submitted that three separate cases under the NDPS Act were registered against the petitioner and that, out of the said cases, the petitioner has been convicted in one case, while another case is still pending trial. The fact that the petitioner was acquitted in one case would not, by itself, efface his remaining criminal antecedents. 11. Learned State counsel further submits that the learned Commissioner-cum-Arresting Officer, after considering the material available on record, has rightly passed the order dated 06.05.2026, which has subsequently been affirmed by the learned Advisory Board vide order dated 23.06.2026. It is submitted that the petitioner has failed 7 to point out any patent illegality, perversity or non-application of mind in the impugned orders and, therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the pleadings as well as the material available on record. 13. The principal submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that, out of the three criminal cases relied upon against him, one has resulted in acquittal, one has culminated in conviction and the third is pending trial, and therefore, the authorities have failed to properly appreciate the actual status of each case. It is true that the status and outcome of each criminal case are relevant circumstances and ought to be taken into consideration by the competent authority. However, the mere fact that one of the cases has resulted in acquittal does not, by itself, render the remaining criminal antecedents irrelevant, particularly when the petitioner has been convicted in another case and a third case is pending trial. 14. From the material available on record, it appears that the learned Commissioner-cum-Arresting Officer has taken into consideration the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and the repeated registration of cases under the NDPS Act while passing the order dated 06.05.2026. The petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that the competent authority acted without jurisdiction or that the impugned order was passed in complete disregard of the material available on record. The learned Advisory Board has also considered the matter and has 8 affirmed the order dated 06.05.2026 vide its order dated 23.06.2026. 15. It is well settled that, while exercising writ jurisdiction in matters relating to preventive action, this Court does not sit as an appellate authority over the subjective satisfaction recorded by the competent authority, unless such satisfaction is shown to be based on irrelevant material, non-existent facts, or is otherwise vitiated by patent illegality, perversity or non-application of mind. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to establish any such infirmity in the impugned orders. 16. The submission that the petitioner is a permanent resident and has roots in the society cannot, by itself, be sufficient to invalidate the preventive action, particularly when the competent authority has relied upon the petitioner's criminal antecedents and the repeated involvement in offences under the NDPS Act. Similarly, the willingness of the petitioner to abide by any terms and conditions imposed by this Court cannot, by itself, displace the satisfaction recorded by the competent authority on the basis of the material available before it. 17. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and upon consideration of the material available on record, we are of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to establish any patent illegality, perversity, arbitrariness or non-application of mind in the order dated 06.05.2026 passed by the learned Commissioner-cum-Arresting Officer, Raipur Division, Raipur, or in the consequential order dated 23.06.2026 passed by the learned Advisory Board, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 9 18. Consequently, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned orders in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan